quote:

soon as the teacher questions the students on believing these things in the bible

quote:

and they'll call the school and then.....?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Evidence?

Yeah, the evidence of the world as it is, with diseases, disasters, and wars and hatred, and religious strife. Clearly whoever designed this world either has no fucking clue what is good for people, or doesn't give a shit.

And you think that the evidence of the world as it now is evidence that "whoever designed this world either has no fucking clue what is good for people, or doesn't give a shit"?

Really isn't what you see around you more evidence that mankind doesn't have a clue what is good for people and doesn't give a shit?

I suggest you step outside, take a deep breath and imagine mankind and all his works gone and tell me that whoever designed this world didn't know what he was doing.

DC has a point, Miles. You blew it away when I mentioned earlier to you that there are a host of inherited genes that are hostile, even fatal to humans and to other animals and there are mutations that occur with regularity that are fatal to humans. Cancer mutations would be one of them. So, anyone who designed these inherited monsters that cause great pain and suffering would have to be in turn a merciless monster. In addition there are natural catastrophes that are deadly to humans: tornadoes, hurricanes, fires, floods, volcanoes, earthquakes, meteor impacts, radiation, etc. Not man made but designed by your Creator. I agree with That Dizzy Chick. Totally evil.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Neither King or Ghandi had the power to be murderous tyrants.

What? Yea, right, if either of these fine examples of nonviolence had the “power” they would have quickly turned into “murderous tyrants”.
As of now my conversation with you is over.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
You see, I don't do that and have never done that. Look at someone's actions, then go back and claim that because of their non-belief. So nowhere in any logic does it follow that because they didn't have power, these men of peace didn't become violent but give them power and claim their beliefs or non belief that made them murderous tyrants.

Actually, that is exactly what you just said and did.

Yes, with Atheists it is harder to determine exactly what their motivation might have been, although it does not seem like atheism was much of a hindrance to them becoming “murderous tyrants” but with the examples of the people with belief, I gave, it is relatively easy to see what their motivation was and that the very belief system they had would not have allowed power to turn them into “murderous tyrants”

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
As I've written, it's the psychopathy.

Yes, “it's the psychopathy” but it seems that a strong belief system can be a buttress against it.

Actually that's not what I did at all and in fact with religious butchery and murder, the culprit tells you quite willingly and in name, you now die for your refusal to believe and have faith in what we tell you to.

A strong belief system is a non-system. Either you believe something or you don't. Religion does not even register with a psychopath but however, will also...never stop the psychopath. The job of religion is to assist and even aid and abet the psychopathic leader as required.

I should have ended this "discussion" like I said I would, as soon as you implied that if both King or Ghandi had the power they would have been murderous tyrants. I can now see it was a mistake to try and give you a second chance to carry on a reasonable discussion. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter but it seems that you are just going to keep on ranting without any consideration to what has been said to you and so there is no point in saying anything more to you.

Except that I never said that Ghandi and King would have become murderous tyrants...you did. I am saying religion isn't necessary to prevent anyone of us from becoming a murderous tyrant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

I am paying attention

OK, if you say so, dearie, of course if you are, that means you're just making shit up as you go along.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

I suggest you step outside, take a deep breath and imagine mankind and all his works gone and tell me that whoever designed this world didn't know what he was doing.

Bullshit argument, not just bullshit, but stupid bullshit. That has fuck all to do with your original hypothesis, so shove back up your where you pulled it out of.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

soon as the teacher questions the students on believing these things in the bible

Ah, I get it, you are unclear on just what a comparative religion course entails.

quote:

and they'll call the school and then.....?

You tell them to fuck off, that's what.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Neither King or Ghandi had the power to be murderous tyrants.

What? Yea, right, if either of these fine examples of nonviolence had the “power” they would have quickly turned into “murderous tyrants”.
As of now my conversation with you is over.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
You see, I don't do that and have never done that. Look at someone's actions, then go back and claim that because of their non-belief. So nowhere in any logic does it follow that because they didn't have power, these men of peace didn't become violent but give them power and claim their beliefs or non belief that made them murderous tyrants.

Actually, that is exactly what you just said and did.

Yes, with Atheists it is harder to determine exactly what their motivation might have been, although it does not seem like atheism was much of a hindrance to them becoming “murderous tyrants” but with the examples of the people with belief, I gave, it is relatively easy to see what their motivation was and that the very belief system they had would not have allowed power to turn them into “murderous tyrants”

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
As I've written, it's the psychopathy.

Yes, “it's the psychopathy” but it seems that a strong belief system can be a buttress against it.

Actually that's not what I did at all and in fact with religious butchery and murder, the culprit tells you quite willingly and in name, you now die for your refusal to believe and have faith in what we tell you to.

A strong belief system is a non-system. Either you believe something or you don't. Religion does not even register with a psychopath but however, will also...never stop the psychopath. The job of religion is to assist and even aid and abet the psychopathic leader as required.

I should have ended this "discussion" like I said I would, as soon as you implied that if both King or Ghandi had the power they would have been murderous tyrants. I can now see it was a mistake to try and give you a second chance to carry on a reasonable discussion. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter but it seems that you are just going to keep on ranting without any consideration to what has been said to you and so there is no point in saying anything more to you.

Except that I never said that Ghandi and King would have become murderous tyrants...you did. I am saying religion isn't necessary to prevent anyone of us from becoming a murderous tyrant.

Unbelievable, you just said that they didn't have power to become murderous tyrants, which implies that if they had the power they would have become murderous tyrants.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

A comparative religion course does precisely that, it compares various religious ideas, tracing their origin, and commonalities. Thus you would learn the connection between the Jesus mythology, the Adonis mythology, and the Tammuz mythology, all of which form a continuum of the idea of a redemptive divine self-sacrifice.

Now before some silly twit gets their panties in a bunch over my use of the word "mythology" in relation to Jesus, it is the correct term. See all religions contain a mythological component, and a philosophical component. The mythological component is the "story" part, the tales of miracles, etc. That makes up the religion's mythology. The teachings, moral, ethical, etc. that the religious tales relate, exemplify, or outright preach (as in the Sermon on the Mount), make up the philosophical component.

Comparative religion courses tend to focus more on the mythological components, than the philosophical, though cosmologies and hagiographies are also covered, as the first is by definition, and the second very often, part of the mythological component.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

A quick and easy way to differentiate between the two is to ask "Is this particular element essential to the message of the religion?"

So in the case of say, the story of Siddhartha Gautama standing up and speaking immediately upon being born, it is irrelevant to the message of Buddhism, and serves to make him magical and supernatural right from the start (something that actual Buddhist teachings run counter to BTW) and so can be taken as part of the mythological component.

However, the story of Mohammed and the mountain is not so clearly mythological, as it demonstrates an essential element in the message of Islam. So the events related may well be made up, it serves a purpose beyond glorifying and mystifying the person/being in question, and so it falls into the philosophical component.

Now, as odd as it may seem at first glance, the crucifixion and resurrection part of the Jesus story is in fact an element of the mythological component of Christianity. Yes, I know that it comprises the central element of Christian belief, but it does not actually serve to advance the message of Christianity. Jesus' words and teachings would be just as valid without that bit. If Jesus just vanished into the wilderness instead of being crucified, it would not eliminate any part of the message. It serves two purposes, first to fulfill some prophecies, and also to reinforce the divinity of Jesus (or at least divine favour enjoyed by him, as it is interpreted in Islam).
And, if you think about it, the supposed meaning of the resurrection is a proof of the truth of the message, well it does no such thing really. How does him being resurrected prove that any part of the message is true? It simply does not, and that leads you to ask why it is in the story. Well, a comparative religion course would have explained that to you, in the whole Tammuz Adonis connection, you would know that the idea of a god dying willingly to redeem his people in some way, and then being reborn/resurrected is a long-standing mythological tradition throughout the middle eastern region (and beyond as well),and knowing this you can understand the reason this seemingly unconnected and basically thematicly irrelevant episode is not only included, but is central to the cult's whole belief system.
It was central to that of Tammuz, and that of Adonis as well, it is a cultural meme so to speak, and thus the central place it has in the Christian narrative, despite it's complete irrelevance to the message of Christianity.

quote:

And yes, I blew away your earlier comment for the same reason. I didn’t think you really wanted to talk about it but okay, let’s talk about it.

We can talk about them all if you want but first I’ll just pick a couple.

Let’s look at cancer, since you mentioned it first, if cancer was “designed by the Creator” I have just one question; why is it that this “designed by the Creator” problem, which seems ubiquitous now, was almost unheard of a hundred years ago? If it was designed from the beginning why wasn’t it a ubiquitous problem from the beginning? Perhaps it is not so much that it was “designed by the Creator” but that mankind is doing things to bring it on themselves.

quote:

Floods? Mankind has known what the hundred-year flood plain is for years so why build your house on the hundred-year flood plain? Also “nature” had ways of absorbing floods without all the big flooding, does wetlands ring a bell, but mankind had a better idea and now it’s God’s fault. Also it's funny that for thousands of years mankind prayed that the flood would come to fertilize the Nile valley, so mankind has not always considered floods an "evil" from God.

quote:

Radiation? I’m not sure which radiation you are thinking of but if it is things like Chernobyl and Fukushima, all I can say is; surely, you’re not trying to say that was “designed by the Creator”.

quote:

The resurrection is central to the story that Jesus was the son of god. With the resurrection, his preachings are confirmed to be divine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

The resurrection is central to the story that Jesus was the son of god. With the resurrection, his preachings are confirmed to be divine.

That is exactly the point. The message itself is not changed, only the supposed divinity of the messenger. Therefore, it is a mythological component, not a philosophical one. It is important to note that all the gospel references to Jesus' otherworldly nature appear in John, a book very much different, not only in style and tone from the other three gospels, but also in content. Not only the mythological content, but also in the teachings of Jesus, John differs significantly from the other gospels.
And as I pointed out, the death and resurrection was also central to the Adonis story, and the Tammuz story, and the Dionysus, and Attis stories.